Water pollution in Tasmania

Water pollution in Tasmania is one of the priority areas of the Pollution Information Tasmania, a community group dedicated to investigating and documenting pollution in the state of Tasmania, Australia.

Background
The Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) currently monitors pesticides in only four rivers during significant rainfall events; the Duck, George, Little Swanport, and Esperance Rivers. The sampling uses automated sampling devices (usually 12 bottles per sampling episode).

Baseline monitoring of 55 catchments, which was initiated in 2005, has so far detected pesticides in seventeen of these rivers. A media release by Minister David Llewellyn in July 2008 stated that "..we would prefer not to see herbicides detected at all……the (current pesticide monitoring) program is not designed to provide early warning of events in particular locations and it cannot do that because, as is the case with these detections, there is often a considerable time lapse between sampling and finalising of water analysis."

Nonetheless the media release also stated that "The water monitoring program is designed to indicate the nature and extent of any water contamination from pesticides and to inform the community." Dr Alison Bleaney, from the Break O'Day Catchment Risk Group on Tasmania's east cost, responded that "it does not, and cannot do so."

As the community audit, Risk Awareness and Incident Response Capability in Water Catchments in North Eastern Tasmania, Australia - published in April 2007 by the Break O'Day Catchment Risk Group (BODCRG) stated, quarterly monitoring, of 19 pesticides in raw river water at the bottom of 54 river catchments, along with ad hoc flood event monitoring of 4 rivers, cannot - when unrelated to pesticide application or catchment characteristics and use - "indicate the nature and extent of any water contamination from pesticides."

The Director for Public and Population Health in Tasmania, Dr Roscoe Taylor, argued in a 2008 report that the rationale for adequate monitoring is that it was to be the means of ensuring the safety of the water.

St Helens drinking water did not comply with the current drinking water standards even for microbiological testing and compliance.

Dr Alison Bleaney wrote that: "At present, apart from the seemingly obvious evidence of contaminated water such as dead fish or animals that drink that water, there are no indicators of polluted raw drinking water supplies. To paraphrase Dr Taylor and apply his own logic to pesticide monitoring: 'the determination of the compliance of the drinking water supply system is dependent on the collection of sufficient samples as insufficient monitoring can result in periods of time when the water may be contaminated but the monitoring program would not detect such occurrences.' All water users including those who irrigate food crops and feed their animals are also at risk from the adverse effects of water contamination."

"Until the pesticides used in the catchments are documented (what, how much, and when applied and for how many years), along with the documentation of the catchment topography, including all water sources and rainfall events, then there can be no confidence in the nature and extent of any water contamination or the safety of drinking water supplies. Using the Pesticide Impact Rating Index (PIRI) tool validated to Tasmanian conditions by DEH,'' CSIRO, UTAS and DPIW will not assist with what has happened historically in catchments and provide the load of pesticides already used, and is only one minor aspect of a risk management approach to catchment use. The Tasmanian River Catchment Water Quality Initiative. finished in September 2008 with four publicly available reports. However large data gaps are evident, including the total amount of pesticides used in Tasmania and in which catchments", she wrote.

"Communities need to be involved with their river catchments and drinking water management plans and until there is genuine community engagement regarding these issues then there can be no confidence in the drinking water quality. Water taken from the George River cannot be guaranteed to be non-contaminated at all times (DPIW has detected 2,4-D, MCPA and metsulfuron-methyl) and a prudent approach would be to use water filters for the supply of drinking water. It can be argued that such risk management practices should be applied to all drinking water sources in Tasmania.It should be recommended that adequate water filters, such as reverse osmosis or activated charcoal filters, should be installed at the water treatment plant prior to the water being stored in reservoirs. How much drinking water costs, its degree of pollution and the urgent need for filters to ensure that the drinking water supply is safe and non-toxic at all times is certainly of concern to all water users", Bleaney wrote.

Water Toxicity Investigations in the George River catchment in northeast Tasmania
In February 2010 the Australian Broadcasting Corporation televised a two-part documentary on Australian Story highlighting the work of Drs Alison Bleaney and Marcus Scammell on water toxicity testing in the George River Catchment. The program included the discovery that a toxin constantly  present in the river water appeared to be originating from the Eucalyptus nitens plantations grown within the catchment.

After the program's screening, the Tasmanian government responded to the national publicity by establishing the George River Water Quality Panel [the Panel]. One of the lead researchers Dr Bleaney received correspondence from the chair of the Panel [John Ramsay, chairman of Tasmania's Environmemt Protection Agency] requesting her to provide the scientific research undertaken by them in the George River catchment and was offered the assurance that their research would be uploaded on the Panel's official webpage dealing with George River Water Quality. In April 2010 Drs Scammell and Bleaney formally presented their research findings (2004 to 2008) to the George River Water Quality Panel. Their findings revealed that an unknown toxin is constantly present in the waters of the George River; the raw drinking water source for St Helens and surrounding local environs. The George River also feeds the Georges Bay, home to a well established oyster industry. The toxin is present in the foam in the river and bay, at levels that are hazardous to oyster larvae.

In April 2010 the research conducted by Drs Scammell and Bleaney since 2004 was published in a report presented to the George River Water Quality Panel. The full reports and findings of the investigations are available here - The executive summary for George River Water Investigations. To date [4 June 2010] the Panel has not uploaded the pdf files of the research investigations undertaken by Drs Bleaney and Scammell onto their website.

Using a process of chemical testing known as chromatography, the presence of toxins in a control water sample taken from a catchment near to another northeast township, St Mary’s (with no tree plantations) was compared to samples taken from the George River and a separate non-toxic water sample, deliberately spiked with E. nitens leaf material. The results revealed that both the George River sample and the spiked samples had toxins in common.

This supported the opinion that a toxin from the genetically improved E. nitens is responsible for the constant toxicity in the water of the George River. The full identity of the toxin remains unknown at present. While the chemical itself remains a mystery, laboratory testing revealed the following properties of the toxin:

1) The toxin(s) was present in surface foam during all dry weather samples.

2) The toxin(s) has a relatively short half life, days to weeks.

3) The toxin(s) is primarily attached to fine particulate matter but some remains dispersed or dissolved.

4) The toxin(s) are not chealatable metals.

5) The toxin(s) are not volatile.

6) The toxin(s) behaves like an organic chemical.

7) The toxin(s) is methanol soluble.

8) During March 2005 the toxin(s) was enhanced by the addition of Piperonyl Butoxide (PBO) [suggesting a pyrethroid type chemical was present].

9) By mid April 2005 this PBO enhancement disappeared, toxicity did not.

10) By Mid April 2005 PBO suppressed toxicity suggesting an organophosphate type chemical was present.

11) Subsequent tests had no PBO effect but a methanol soluble toxin remained.

12) Chemistry was unable to confirm what the PBO effecting chemicals were.

13) Methanol fractionation indicated multiple toxins were present.

14) The toxins were not proteins.

15) The toxins were not of blue-green algal origin.

16) The toxins were unlikely to be of bacterial or fungal origins.

17) The toxins affected multiple test targets (Cladocerans, Oysters, Sea Urchins and three human cell lines) at similar concentrations.

18) The toxin(s) are not found downstream of natural forests.

Urgent work detailing the chemistry of the toxin and its effects are obviously needed as a matter of priority.

The laboratories that participated in the independent water testing were: Advanced Analytical Australia Pty Ltd, Sydney – Chemical Analysis; Australian Proteome Analysis Facility, Macquarie University, Sydney – Protein and Amino Acid Analysis and Chemical Fractionation; Australian Water Quality Centre, a business unit of South Australian Water, Adelaide – Blue Green Algal Analysis; Chemical Safety and Applied Toxicology Laboratories, University of New South Wales, Sydney – Human Cell Line Toxicology; Ecotox Services Australia Pty Ltd, Sydney – Toxicology to Aquatic Organisms and Chemical Fractionation; Genetic ID (NA) Inc., Iowa, USA – Genetically Modified Organism Identification; NIWA (National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research), New Zealand – Repeating and extending toxicology and chemical findings from the above laboratories with respect to aquatic organisms.

Since the Australian Story was broadcast, the Tasmanian Department for Health & Human Services (DHHS) has written three formal letters to the residents of St Helens concerning the issue and the steps being taken to protect the safety of their drinking water including the installation of activated carbon at the water treatment plant.

The Tasmanian DHHS is now working with the scientists involved in these investigations and other experts to determine what the test results mean for human health.

In May 2010 at the Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry conference in Seville (Spain), Chris Hickey and Michael Stewart from National Institute of National Water and Atmospheric Research (New Zealand) delivered a presentation on further research into the issues relating to the toxicity in the George River water. The presentation entitled: Catchment studies in Georges Bay, Tasmania: base-flow water and foam toxicity to cladocerans and blue-mussels – A case of unintended consequences? revealed that a mixture of toxic compounds, strongly bound to particulate matter, are common to the river foam and Tasmanian E. nitens leaf. The Tasmanian E. nitens leaves are chemically different from the purportedly parent Victorian E. nitens leaves and have markedly stronger foam-forming ability. The issues related to the toxicity require further urgent investigations, especially suspended solids, both concentrations and loads, and toxic exceedances in river water during storm-flow events. The adverse impacts due to the toxins require monitoring and may require mitigation; the extent depending on further research.

In late June 2010 the George River Water Panel released its final report and on 6 July another letter was sent to all ratepayers in St Helens co-signed by the municipal mayor, the Director of Public Health and the CEO of the regional water authority (Ben Lomond Water) pdf here. The release of the George River Water Panel’s final report triggered a swift review and formal response by the lead scientists. Drs. Scammell and Bleaney have replied to the Panel's report noting that despite recognition that there have been oyster mortality events and apparent other anomalies within the catchment, the Panel has come to the conclusion without any further data collection, that the toxin or toxins present in the George River are within acceptable limits, and therefore pose no threat to the ecosystem or the community. A former Tasmanian Minister for the Environment, Andrew Lohrey slammed the final report, calling it ‘one of the most dubious reports I have read in a long time’ and its public release a ‘cynical exercise by the head of the Tasmanian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) [that] has seriously damaged public confidence in the independence of that authority’.

The Tasmanian Public and Environmental Health Network also responded to the Panel's final report. pdf here

In late August 2010 following on from some strident criticisms from the Tasmanian Premier David Bartlett, a member of the Legislative Council in the Tasmanian Parliament attacked the two episodes of Australian Story - Something in the Water televised on ABC1 in February 2010.

The Tasmanian Legislative Councillor for the electorate that includes St Helens, Tania Rattray told the Parliament that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) should compensate the St Helens community financially for the damage caused for the televising of the program. She stated that the two episodes had incorrectly claimed that there were elevated levels of toxins in the St Helens drinking water and referred to the George River Water Panel set up by the Tasmanian government to review the science. The Councillor called for a significant donation to be made by the ABC to the St Helens Chamber of Commerce to pay for a marketing and information campaign to encourage tourism and provide compensation for losses to local businesses that had apparently been severely affected by the ‘false report’. The lead scientists in the George River water quality study Drs Alison Bleaney and Marcus Scammell responded promptly to these claims.

Does Tasmania grow toxic plantation trees?
The laboratories participating in research and analysis of untreated water from the George River (the drinking water catchment for St Helens, NE Tasmania) concluded that there are toxins in the George River that will kill aquatic organisms and human cells. The laboratories have further determined that the toxins appear to originate from a non-native eucalypt (Eucalyptus nitens) grown in plantation monocultures.

Eucalyptus nitens is the second most widely planted eucalypt species in Australia grown primarily for pulpwood but increasingly for solid-wood production. In 2006 the established E. nitens plantation area in Australia was assessed at 143,000 hectares (mainly in Tasmania 132,000 ha) and comparable to those in Chile at 140,000 ha in 2004. E. nitens is also grown commercially in China, New Zealand and South Africa.

During the last two decades the breeding programs selecting commercial attributes in eucalypts has become increasing integrated across organizations such as State government forestry agencies, the Hardwood CRC, commercial seed & seedling suppliers and managed investment scheme (MIS) plantation companies (FEA, Gunns Ltd) and increasingly globalised. The E. nitens commercial breeding program now operated by Gunns Ltd is the longest running program in Australia [previously incorporated in APPM Ltd, North Ltd and Rio Tinto Ltd]. It is noteworthy to indicate that up to the mid-1990’s Gunns Ltd E. nitens breeding programs received ‘further infusions from Central Victoria and overseas breeding programs’.

According to Gunns Plantations Limited (GPL) newsletter investors in their ‘managed investment scheme’ (MIS) Eucalyptus nitens tree plantations are directly benefiting from their tree breeding activities. GPL has increased growth rates of E. nitens plantations by 22% since the establishment of their tree breeding program.

Commercial interests established hardwood plantations in Tasmania in the 1940’s and by early 1970’s companies now owned by Gunns Ltd was pioneering research to develop Eucalypt plantations. Since the 1970’s, 88 tree breeding trials containing well over 100,000 trees of various Eucalypt species have been planted in Tasmania in a variety of environments to determine the species best suited for wood fibre for the Burnie pulp and paper mill owned by Paperlinx [this mill closed in May 2010]. E. nitens - a species not found naturally in Tasmania - was identified as the best species for commercial purposes under Tasmanian climatic conditions and a tree breeding program commenced. E.nitens occurs naturally in cool regions of Victoria and New South Wales at higher altitudes.

According to GPL the tree breeding program focuses on improving the traits that are the most economically vital for pulp and paper production such as kraft pulp yield and basic density and growth. In recent years, the program has been expanded to include a focus on the structural traits such as branch size, branch angle and stem straightness - traits important for the production of veneer logs. The best quality trees, often referred to by the industry as 'selections' or 'plus trees' are clonally propagated by grafting so they can be planted in either a seed orchard to produce seed for plantations establishment or in a breeding arboretum where their seed is used for the next round of breeding trials.

E. nitens are difficult to clonally propagate from self-rooting cuttings and coppicing techniques so clonal selections are commenced by grafting selected E. nitens onto seedling trees in the same way as horticultural crops such as apple trees. The species can be readily grafted and open-pollination seed orchards of E. nitens have been established for this purpose. Improved E. nitens trees are now grown as commercial pulp trees world-wide. According to Kelsey Joyce, Manager of tree breeding for GPL ‘Tree breeding is a long term commitment involving extensive research as it takes many years to grow trials for analysis and selection. The findings from this research are highly beneficial in continually improving our product and allowing us to remain competitive in a global industry’.

Several seed orchards containing selected E. nitens trees are allowed to mature to produce its valuable seed. All the seed used for Gunns’ plantation establishment now comes from these intensively managed, grafted seed orchards. According to GPL these genetically improved tree breeding stock are essential for the profitability of their MIS woodlot plantations.

In 1999 the commercial seed producer Derford Nitens commenced field trials with Forestry Tasmania and Forests Enterprises Australia to ‘verify the genetic gains and to enable intense back selection of seed orchard parents to maximize the gains in pulpwood and solid-wood traits’. In 2000 a clonal seed orchard was established with Derford Nitens contributring genetic material for both breeding and commercial deployments through organizations such as Forestry Industry. The seeds are collected in the seed orchard Derford Nitens at Bream Creek located in southeast Tasmania are now being commercially traded internationally.

Ongoing genetic improvement of E. nitens has been occurring throughout the first decade of the 21st century.

In March 2010 Bleaney and Scammell released the research findings of their research on the identification of a previously unknown group of toxins in freshwater in the George River catchment. The presence of a range of pesticides registered for use in commercial agriculture and forestry were intermittently detected, the commonest being alpha-cypermethrin, atrazine, simazine, glyphosate, the phenoxy herbicides - 2,4-D, MCPA  and metsulfuron-methyl. From water testing came the discovery of several unknown chemicals in the water samples. The presence of these chemicals in water samples made it hazardous to marine and freshwater organisms and to human cell lines. The structure and pharmaco-toxicity of these chemicals is still to the subject of research.

Eucalyptus spp. trees naturally produce volatile oils such as cineole and pineole - constituents of eucalyptus oil. Positive correlations exists between the concentrations of cineole and concentrations of formylated phloroglucinol compounds (FPCs) in several Eucalypts, suggesting that selective breeding trees for increased cineole quantities will also result in the selection for increased FPCs. Research into selective breeding of Eucalyptus with higher concentrations of these toxic compounds to deter browsing herbivores such as wallabies (Marcopus rugogriseus and Thylogale billardierii and possums (Trichosurus vulpecula), and developmental stages of leaf beetles and gum moths has been carried out.

Tree seedling breeding programmes advertise that clonal propagation technologies are used. Also, the current literature on commercial tree biotechnology regularly includes terms such as ‘selective breeding’, ‘elite trees’, ‘enhance pest and environmental tolerance of plantation trees’, ‘genetic enhancement’, ‘supply and propagate superior germplasm’, ‘determine the genes controlling critical wood quality factors’, and include references to areas such as ‘gene association’, ‘gene tagging’ and ‘gene knockouts – RNAi’ technologies. Fifteen years ago the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) endotoxin gene was incorporated into E. globulus and E. nitens and a synergistic effect of the Bt protein and the volatile oil, cineole was shown to exist. Expressed Bt endotoxin was damaging to the midgut allowing cineole to enter the insect haemolymph and exert a toxic effect at lower concentrations than occurred when Bt endotoxin was not present.

Two informative contributions on GE (genetically engineered) Eucalyptus trees grown in plantations and whether Tasmania grows toxic plantation trees are included here.

Genetically engineered trees, going global
The International Paper Corporation - the world’s largest integrated pulp & paper maker - has announced plans to remake commercial forests in the same way the Monsanto Corporation changed agricultural farms with the introduction of genetically modifed crops. In late August 2009 ArborGen - a joint venture between International Paper, MeadWestvaco Corporation and Rubicon Ltd in New Zealand applied to US Department of Agriculture(USDA) for permission to legally market the first genetically-engineered forest trees outside of China.

ArborGen, based in Summerville, South Carolina, was created in 2000 when the three partners pooled their tree-research assets and intellectual property. The venture sells about 300 million conventional tree seedlings a year to 2,000 customers in the United States, Australia and New Zealand. Others companies developing gene-modified trees, including FuturaGene Plc in the United Kingdom and SweTree Technologies in Sweden; both are plant seedling businesses and aren’t yet pursuing permission for commercial sales.

The commercial drivers for this revolution have been the competitive advantage of providing ‘a reliable supply of lower cost wood’ at a time when globally natural forests are dwindling. Commercialisation and globalised trade in GE tree seed stock for pulp and paper manufacture has the potential to expand the planting of these GE-cultivars. According to the United Nations, currently about 4 percent of the world’s 8.5 billion forest acres are plantations, and 2.6 million hectares (6.4 million acres) of new plantations are added annually. ArborGen’s genetically engineered eucalyptus trees would come on the back of GM disease-resistant plum and papaya trees already approved by the USDA.

The International Paper’s interest in ArborGen relates to the potential of modified trees such as cold-tolerant Eucalyptus to provide a sustainable source of hardwood for pulp and to make biofuels from timber. In Brazil, ArborGen plans to seek approval for eucalyptus that matures in four, rather than seven years, and eucalyptus with reduced lignin content; a commercial advantage for pulp and paper manufacture.

The application to the USDA seeks approval sales of freeze-tolerant eucalyptus trees. Barbara Wells, a former Monsanto executive and now the Chief Executive Office of ArborGen had discussed these emerging trends in her doctoral thesis on GMO agronomy.

Monsanto’s genetic program developed the first commercial herbicide-tolerant soybeans in 1996 and insect-resistant corn in 1997. In 2008 88% of the world’s 309 million acres were biotech plantings and Monsanto’s sales of GE seeds quadrupled to $6.4 million since 2002. The Monsanto blueprint for commercialised genetically-engineered plants is recognised as model for International Paper’s R&D subsidiary, ArborGen.

Eucalypt metabolites as deterrents to leaf-eaters
It is also well known that trees in the genus Eucalyptus contain complex mixtures of plant secondary metabolites including terpenoids, hydrolysable and condensed tannins, flavonoids, long-chain ketones, cyanogenic glycosides and formylated phloroglycinol compounds (FPCs). Many of these compounds are putative defensive chemicals conferring possible resistance to leaf eating by insects and marsupial folivores such as brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula).

The expression of terpene and FPCs in leaves of Eucalyptus spp. is known to be highly heritable. Genetic linkage mapping using several hundred genomic markers can now accurately locate regions of the Eucalyptus genome influencing leaf concentrations of these plant secondary compounds. The genetic analysis of mature E. nitens was undertaken as a first step towards elucidating the possible genetic control of terpene and FPC accumulation in eucalypt leaves.

The importance of terpenes in eucalypt leaves conferring resistance to insect attack is equivocal, however, FPCs, which are restricted limited to Eucalyptus, are the single most important component of their leaves that determines consumption of foliage by marsupial folivores. FPCs also confer resistance to Christmas beetles (Anoplognathus spp.), and paropsine chrysomelids. Whereas eucalypts containing FPCs are not acceptable to the ring-tail possum (Pseudocheirus peregrinus), the most populous arborial folivore in Tasmania, the brushtail possum readily ingests FPC-rich eucalyptus leaves but prefers leaves with lower tannin contents.

Transgenic Toxins in commercial plants - a perspective
Headwater streams are intimately connected with the adjacent terrestrial environments. By-products from commercial crop fields have been shown to enter the draining water catchments throughout the agricultural mid-western U.S. In mid-west USA agriculture is predominated by agricultural monocultures; in 2006 alone, 33,100,000 hectares was planted to corn, and an estimated 35% of this was transgenic corn modified to express the - bacteria-derived δ-endotoxin Cry1Ab, derived from Bacillus thuringiensis(hereafter referred to as Bt corn).

Crop plant residues from Bt corn are known to contain this toxin and recent research has shown some adverse effects of Bt corn by-products on stream organisms. This study focused on headwater streams in cropping regions of northern Indiana during 2005 and 2006. The authors assessed how these post-harvest crop residues were transported into nearby streams via wind and water and the possible decay of crop by-products through microbial decomposition, consumption by aquatic invertebrates, sedimentation, or downstream transport. The authors used stream-side litter traps to collect and quantify litter inputs; on 12 study sites the amount of crop residue in water samples ranged from 0.1 to 7.9 grams of ash-free dry mass per sq. meter of stream channel; whilst sediments within the streams contained up to 6.4 g/sq. meter of particulate corn byproducts. The authors also examined the transport distances of crop residues via water. At one site, Bt corn pollen in water was estimated to have traveled 2km because of high water velocities, whereas sites with near-zero water velocity corn by-products did not move. Corn crop by-product was retented in the streambed through adherence to benthic algal biofilms and macroalgae. Various transgenic material from these corn crops that entered these headwater catchments were retained during base flow and thus were available in situ for microbial processing, consumption by aquatic insects, or mobilized sediment and increased accumulation of corn residues for transport down the catchment after high rainfall events. If the corn residues are not decomposed or consumed, they are subject to transport downstream during high discharge events (e.g. storms), which occurred throughout the year in the study area. Storm flows were the primary driver of the transport of plant particle (including for transgenic crop residues) from headwater channels.

No studies have indicated that the bacterial Bt δ-endotoxin in corn plant residues affect microbial processes associated with litter decomposition, however, the presence of the toxin in plant residues is potentially significant to macroinvertebrate consumers inhabiting these aquatic systems. The effect of transgenic sources of BT endotoxin on aquatic invertebrates remains unclear. The Bt δ-endotoxin can target lepidopteran (butterflies and moths), dipteran (true flies), and coleopteran (beetles) insects and one study demonstrated that the effects on non-target organisms depended on the exposure concentration of the endotoxin and that aquatic stages of lepidopteran larvae, typically do not consume enough Bt-corn pollen in the field to be negatively affected. There are no published studies on the impact of Bt crop by-products on stream insects, such as trichopterans (caddisflies), which are common in streams in North America and Australia. and are closely related to lepidopterans, the insect-pest group specifically targeted by the Cry1Ab protein in Bt corn.

Amongst the caddisflies there are filter-feeding trichopterans that build nets to filter particles from the water column; there are also trichopteran taxa that feed by scraping biofilms off submerged surfaces and detritivorous trichopterans that feed on leaf litter all are also common in streams.

Reported lower growth rates and higher mortality of stream caddisflies, as measured in laboratory feeding studies has the potential to affect freshwater food webs by reducing secondary production and consequently the prey biomass available to stream and riparian predators, such as fishes, amphibians, and birds. It is suggested that the effects will be most evident with caddisflies because of their close relationship to the lepidopteran target species, but how the effect would extend to other aquatic invertebrates is currently unknown.

Water Pollution Issues in Tasmanian Catchments
In 1997 the Tasmanian and Commonwealth Government signed the Regional Forest Agreement which hearlded the beginning of broad scale native forest conversion into single species plantations. Genetically improved Eucalyptus nitens became the dominant plantation species grown in Tasmania. According to retired hydrologist, Dr David Leaman, ‘there is every likelihood that the Tasmania we have known will be changed forever by the actions of the past decade - since 1995 and especially since the ratification of the Regional Forest Agreement in 1997. We need to know how this water cycle works because we are heading for a different environment, ecology, economy and future - a drier and more poisonous one’.

After many years of community outrage over the use of biocide chemicals in commercial forestry, the Tasmanian government initiated a quarterly water monitoring program for 55 rivers, with 19 chemicals tested. The transport of chemicals resulting from aerial chemical spray drift and contamination of both ground and surface water has been highlighted on numerous occasions. The reporting of chemical residue results is usually delayed by several months and forensic tracing to the activities and locations where these chemicals have entered the water cycle is not undertaken.

This is a profound disappointment for Dr Leaman, ‘The scientific and responsible approach would be to seek out the source of the chemical contamination. State chemical use rules are so lax on approvals and policing, such that is may not be known which lands or land-owners have been recent users of a detectible chemical’. ‘What is more important? - bueaucratic convenience, political embarrassment or community & environmemntal health'.

According to Dr Leaman, it is possible to trace the detected chemical to a property, a land-use activity and to a user, if the regulator is willing to do so. As an example he cites a water system in south eastern Tasmania, ‘there are now few livestock or horticultural farmers in the Prosser catchment, but an increasing number of tree farms, converted from old pastures to plantations’. Referring to the Tasmanian Water Management Act 1999 Leaman writes, ‘the authors of this legislation did not understand that groundwater could be polluted…not just by pouring a chemical agent down a well. This is a fundamental ignorance of the realities of the water cycle’. [TO BE CONTINUED]

Bore water testing
In July 2009, DPIPWE announced the results of water samples of 58 bores across Tasmania for a range of pesticides."These results have detected pesticide in four samples. All levels of detection are below Australian Drinking Water Guideline health values. Eleven samples tested positive for Bisphenol A which is not a pesticide," the department stated.

While the samples were taken in April and May 2009, the Department did not state whether follow up testing would be undertaken or whether action would be undertaken following the results. Nor did the department explain how the endocrine disruptor bisphenol-A came to be in the bore water samples or the potential implications for a series of proposed irrigation schemes for agricultural production.

Related SourceWatch articles

 * Air pollution in Tasmania
 * Food quality in Tasmania
 * Landfill pollution in Tasmania
 * Marine pollution in Tasmania
 * One Health - Human, Animal & Environmental Health in Tasmania
 * Toxic heavy metals in Tasmania

External resources

 * Submission by Dr Alison Bleaney, MD to a Review of the Code of Practice for Aerial Spraying - May 2005
 * Archive of reports evidencing significant or widespread pesticide contamination of Tasmania's waterways, includes other pesticide related reports.
 * Pesticide Monitoring in Water Catchments conducted by the Department Primary Industries, Parks and Environment - provides program results for: Baseline Monitoring; Flood Monitoring; Investigations and Follow-up Testing by SIRU; and Ground Water Monitoring.
 * Water S.O.S is a very useful activist website includes information about water catchment pollution and other information relating to the impacts of forestry operations in Tasmania.
 * Pesticide Action Network are an American based advocacy group that believe pesticides are a public health problem that requires public engagement to solve - they have publicly available information to help communities take action on pesticides.
 * US National Tap Water Quality Database lists more than 140 contaminants with no enforceable safety limits found in the United States drinking water.
 * Press release from Mr Robert Belcher on the Australian Story program Something in the Water Mr Belcher is a campaigner against the social & environmental consequences of tree plantation monocultures in Australia

External articles

 * Dr David Leaman, "Submission to the House of Representatives Inquiry into the impact of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in Australia" 2 December, 2010
 * U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "New Atrazine Evaluation", October 7, 2009. This article is about the U.S. EPA launch of a new comprehensive evaluation of atrazine - based on this evaluation, the Agency will decide whether to revise its current atrazine risk assessments and whether new restrictions are necessary to better protect health and the environment.
 * Alison Bleaney, "Pesticides and the Tasmanian forestry industry", Chain Reaction, Friends of the Earth Australia, Number 105, April 2009.
 * Michelle Paine, "New depth in toxic scare", The Mercury, August 3, 2009.
 * "Editorial: Not weak on water", The Mercury, August 4, 2009.
 * Charles Duhigg, "Debating How Much Weed Killer Is Safe in Your Water Glass", The New York Times, August 22, 2009.
 * Heather Patisaul, "Atrazine acts in the brain to disrupt the hormones that trigger ovulation", Environmental Health News, August 20, 2009. This is a synopsis of C.D. Foradori, L.R. Hinds, W.H. Hanneman and R.J. Handa, "Effects of atrazine on GnRH neuroendocrine function after its withdrawal in the adult female Wistar rat", Biology of Reproduction'', July 15, 2009.
 * Danielle Ivory, "EPA Fails to Inform Public About Weed-Killer in Drinking Water", Huffington Post Investigative Fund, August 27, 2009.
 * Tim Morris, "WHAT IS GOVT DOING ABOUT TOXIC COCKTAIL IN COAL RIVER VALLEY? Does Premier Care About Chemical Contamination?" The Greens, August 26, 2009.
 * Alison Bleaney, "The growing atrazine scandal", Tasmanian Times, August 29, 2009.
 * Sue Napier, "Minister Lacks Vision and Leadership on Pesticide regulation", Tasmanian Liberals, August 25, 2009.
 * Sue Napier, "Water testing needs improvement", Tasmanian Liberals, August 27, 2009.
 * Alison Bleaney, "Submission on Draft Guidelines for Slipways Tasmania 2008", Break O’Day Catchment Risk Group, April 15, 2008. (Pdf)
 * Alison Bleaney, Simon Branigan, "Chemical policy reform urgently needed", Tasmanian Times, February 16, 2010. This Press release is calling on the government to ensure the safety of drinking water.
 * Andrew Lohrey et al, "GM Nitens Coverup?", Tasmanian Times, February 24, 2010.
 * Andrew Lohrey et al, "Call for probe of toxic plantations", Tasmanian Times, February 23, 2010.
 * A. R. Ezzy, "The effects of waste disposal on groundwater quality in Tasmania: Overview Report", Tasmanian Geological Survey Record, 2002.